“Bribe your son”, “Bribe your daughter”: Luis Arce and Evo Morales already include their family in their struggle for power in Bolivia

The debate between the leaders of the MAS, Luis Arce and Evo Moralesaspiring candidates in 2025, is neither ideological nor edifying, and is reduced to allusions to the corruption of their children.

Deputy Héctor Arce, of the Morales current, asked parliament to investigate the “black hand” of the president’s son, named Marcelo Arce Mosqueirain the operating contract of the lithium deposits signed with a Chinese company.

Cocalero Morales supported his deputy with the argument that it is necessary to verify what were the power factors that prompted the government to choose a Chinese company to exploit the deposits considered the most important in the country. South America.

In response, the MP Rolando Cuellarof Luis Arce’s current, said that while we’re at it, if the president’s son is to be investigated, it would be appropriate to also investigate Morales’ daughter, Evaliz, for signs of corruption.

No allusion to ideologies or doctrines, only to the corruption of his children, of two characters who have led Bolivia since 2006, one as president and the other as minister of economy from 2006 to 2017 and despite the loyalty that they swore to each other several times.

But the one who took this confrontation of offenses to the extreme was carlos romerowho was Minister of Morales: “The government of Luis Arce has fallen into mega corruption.”

The claim comes as weekly Siglo 21 reports that the Arce government has decided to import gasoline and diesel from Argentina using 1,500 tankers, instead of using the Paraguay-Paraná waterway or the train, which would save $60 million.

The opposition has denounced that another son of President Arce has taken control of the state oil company, YPFB, and is making the most unlikely decisions.

The previous time Morales alluded to the participation of Arce’s children in public companies, the president replied: “With my family, don’t mess around.”

But this time, things have gone very far and the cross allusions that both make to the alleged acts of corruption of their children seem the proof that, This time yes, the break between Luis Arce and Evo Morales is not an operetta.

The grievances that Luis Arce and Morales hurl at each other, with the participation of Vice President David Choquehuanca, who leads the third party, are so numerous and so frequent that the media does not have time to s take care of the opposition.

This is why it was suspected that the fights were meant to entertain and distract the audience, but would reconcile at any time, which now seems highly unlikely.

Opponent José Carlos Sánchez believes that the leadership struggles of MAS could end when all actors realize that the system of electoral fraud that the party has put in place is in danger, as denounced by the OAS in 2019.

But at the moment there is no indication that the fraud system is in danger, except for some doubts about who would manage this delicate mechanism which, in previous elections, had the participation of Venezuelan, Cuban and Russian advisers. .

During, The Arce government has given signs it may back off from prosecuting, and jailing, bishops who took part in the tense 2019 negotiations, when a massive popular protest did not accept the fraud committed by Morales.

Justice Minister Iván Lima said it was not appropriate to commit the bishops to a new trial for these events because they had already been summoned to testify for a similar cause and they were acquitted.

Morales said they were “putschist bishops”, despite the fact that there are videos and publications from the time in which he himself asks the Catholic Church to attend negotiations to pacify the country.

Bishop Juárez said what happened in 2019, when Morales resigned and fled Bolivia, was the result of “monumental fraud,” but there was no coup.

In addition to these problems, the Arce government is now facing serious economic problems, starting with the lack of dollars to import fuel, which forced it to take decisions that jeopardized the stability of the currency, with a fixed exchange rate against the dollar for ten years.

Continue reading: